Disadvantages Of Power Sharing (Essay Sample)

Disadvantages of sharing power

Power refers to influence bestowed upon individuals with the mandate and responsibilities of controlling state’s machinery and resources. Individuals’ ascent to power either by democratic election process or by appointments based on qualification. The office tenure comes with significant and relevant opportunities and honors. There are various social, economic and political benefits of obtaining power. Despite the quest for full fledge power, occasionally, there are grand coalition issues prompting power-sharing. For instance, shambolic and undemocratic election process may result in power sharing among the candidates. Power-sharing is associated with different disadvantages. Indeed, power-sharing approaches are subject to failed leaders with little vision and mission.

Accountability is imperative for the gross domestic growth of any nation. Embezzlement of resources is often predominant in a situation where power sharing deal is virtual and practical. Leaders should be responsible and accountable to ensure efficient utilization of resources. However, in the power sharing deal, no individuals have a hinge and a personal stake in the entire process. Surprising, individual predominantly concentrates on the assigned duties and mandates with diminished conscious in the progress of another department. It is a natural human behavior of internal competition. Diminished accountability in social organization enhanced misuse of public resources. Precisely, power sharing contributes to embezzlement of resources. In an organized institution, one individual is mandated with utmost powers and authority to supervise and take responsibility for any questionable activity.

Dedication, undoubted commitment, and passion to discharge the assigned duties and responsibilities are autonomous for the realization of success in the organization. Working with minimum supervision to deliver quality services within tight and restricted time limits should be the guiding principles and fundamentals of all staffs. However, vigor and vehemence in service delivery are considerably weakened by sharing a task within an institution. The provision of services is often efficient and easier when assigned to a particular individual rather than sharing the duties. Consultations and debates before making final decision are time insensitive. The two parties engaged in the power sharing deals are cautious to take risks when issues arise. The confusion over the accountability matters broaden.

Finger pointing and blame games are the frequent outcomes of power sharing. The worst result is the emergence of a no-man land. During designation process of the jurisdiction, the gray area is left vacuum with none of the leaders to take the full responsibility. The leaders accuse one another of neglecting such gray areas which fall towards the end of the designated domain. In a similar situation, lack of final arbiter is the most relevant disadvantages power sharing. When two parties are in dispute, none of them has the power to decide and calm the tension. In such situations, issues can potentially drift further, influencing emotions to fester. Power sharing deals are therefore one of the most dangerous approaches for developing institution with immature democracy.

Finally, personal animosity and conflicting personalities is a common phenomenon in the power sharing deal. During the power sharing process, one party will inevitably expend excessive effort than the other colleague. Moreover, the embraced perception that one person is more powerful than the colleague within an institution could prompt personal animosity. Such perceptions results to resentfulness and bitterness thus hinder vital service delivery process ought to be the priority of leadership. Nevertheless, the leadership styles of one leader may antagonize the other preferred leadership styles. It is not pretty for a leader to implement policies and regulation perceived to be violating other preferred policies by the other leader in the grand coalition. Conflicting personalities may promote bitterness and hatred among leaders. In conclusion, power sharing idea is implausible for the realization of any beneficial and significant progress.